Welsh Plant caught in EPA's 'Catch 22'

Letters should be limited to 300 words. Letters must be signed by the author and include a telephone number to confirm identity and clarify details. The Daily Tribune reserves the right to reject any and all letters, edit letters for style, grammar, spelling and content, and limit the number of letters from authors (generally once a month) or on a given subject. Letters to the editor are a free service of the Daily Tribune. We believe a healthy dialogue on issues that concern you is necessary in a democracy whether we agree with the positions taken by the writers or not. We encourage your participation. You may mail letters to P.O. Box 1177, Mount Pleasant, TX 75456. Fax them to (903) 572-6026. Along the walkway from administrative offices, past the massive turbine that propels the power generator, and through the staggered stacked metal canisters that hold the workings of the plant, connected with screen metal stairwells that wind in an endless maze of metal and engine noise – the heat held steady at about 110 degrees; but in the control room for the three power plant units, the temperature felt comfortable and the workers talked and joked with each other: jovial, a bit pensive, but upbeat. Ricky McLeroy, control center operator for unit two, the unit set for closure by 2014, was stationed in front of two computers and an expanse of wall space in front and to his right, on which he monitors countless dials, lights, and digital readings that tell him if the unit is operating properly, and managing the load demand. He’s been with the plant for 31 years, he says. About the recent pronouncement from AEP regarding closure of unit two, he said, “It looks like my job may be in jeopardy. I hope it’s premature, though, and hopefully it will get worked out. Nobody likes to hear news like that.” Welsh Plant Manager Tommy Slater, P.E., said the all-time peak load last year was recorded at 4,984 MW last August. So far this year, the peak has been reported at 4,500 MW, with 5,000 set as the projected peak load for this summer. Peak load is the amount of power required in one hour’s time to meet the load demand. Slater said 85 percent of that load is met with coal-produced electricity, and 15 percent with power from natural gas. He says the coal is cheaper to produce. According to Scott McCloud, a SWEPCO spokesman who traveled from the Shreveport headquarters for the Tribune’s plant tour and interview, “The first time in 25 years SWEPCO requested a non-fuel base rate increase from PUC was in April of 2010. The commission approved only a portion of the increase SWEPCO requested. The bottom line is, if we can’t make a decent profit, we can’t afford to make the changes. The demand continues to rise. If we have to close we would have to buy extra power on the open market, which is even more expensive.”  Slater said, for the most part, the plant employees seem optimistic. “I’m sure they are worried about it. I’m sure they’re concerned, but hoping for the best. I walk through the plant every day. We have an open organization, informal conversation and communication. We’ve had no formalized meeting on the proposed closures since the first one with the COO of SWEPCO on the day of the AEP announcement of possible closures.” The plant burns coal that comes in by rail from Wyoming. It’s dirty black sooty clumps of grime that cost plenty to transport and burn, but using coal’s still cheaper than generating energy made from natural gas or renewables. Windmill costs more to build than the coal plants, and require coal plants to keep them turning when the wind stops, Slater and McCloud said. Though EPA has not been available to respond to any of the Tribune’s requests for comment, Slater says, “Several years ago, the Welsh Plant was cited for EPA compliance issues. All those issues were mitigated, and settled three or four years ago. We are in complete compliance, better than they require in every way. We meet or exceed every EPA requirement and permit for all units.” On record, in the summer of 2008, a settlement was reached between environmental groups and AEP over air pollution in Titus County; but in January of 2009, the Sue Sturgis Institute of Southern Studies compiled a list of the 100 most polluting coal plants in the United States in terms of coal combustion waste (CCW) stored in surface impoundments; and ranked Welsh 53 on the list. However, the list was based on old data. In the meantime, as power companies wait for the air to clear on what they need to do to meet pending regulations, AEP and SWEPCO have set up an advocacy website for persons who want to join a campaign for more reasonable compliance timelines:  www.capitalconnect.com /aep .

Ground Water Treatment Technology Ready to Drink

Water is a very important need that can not be negotiable. Therefore, if water is not being met adequately, then it will have an impact on health and social problems. Water has a standard requirement for consumption of various terms, such as physical, chemical, and bacteriological. The third requirement is an inseparable unity. So, if the requirements are not met one, then the water is not feasible consumption and can cause health problems either directly or indirectly. To overcome these problems, there is another alternative that is by using ground water treatment technology ready to drink to get water quality standards that meet the requirements of proper water consumption. The purpose of water treatment technology is to improve public health, particularly people who still use groundwater or well water is used as daily necessities. Although the product targets ground water treatment technology ready to drink , but maybe this can be a solution for those in need. Units of water treatment equipment can be used to improve the quality of well water or groundwater as the water needs to be drunk directly without heating. This unit is suitable for use as in densely populated settlements. The processing of ground water treatment technology ready to drink the ground water pumped from wells with a pump jet, as he was given chlorine into the reactor tank. Of the reactor tank, the water flowed fast into the sand filter to filter the iron oxide or manganese oxide which precipitates to tank reactor. then circulate water to the manganese zeolite filters. This function manganese zeolite filters remove iron or manganese that have not had time to oxide by chlorine.

Popular Science

Activated carbon adsorption

Activated carbon applications in the food and pharmaceutical industries

Activated Carbon from China

Goldfrank's toxicologic emergencies